Universal Moral Grammar: theory, evidence, and the future.

1. Universal Moral Grammar: theory, evidence, and the future. Mikhail, J.(2007) Universal Moral Grammar: Theory, Evidence, and the Future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (11)4, 143-152. Doi:10.1016/j. tics. 2006.12.007.

2. Origins of Nature and Human Moral Cognition • Mikhail links the study of human morality to Chomsky’s studies of linguistics • Chomsky proposed a Universal Grammar that is innate in all humans. In this article, Mikhail proposes that a Universal Moral Grammar (UMG) exists as well. • Mikhail suggests that humans are born with the innate ability to make moral decisions • Nature vs. Nurture Mikhail, J. (2007) Universal Moral Grammar: theory, evidence, and the future.

3. Five Main Questions • What constitutes moral knowledge? • How is moral knowledge acquired? • How is moral knowledge put to use? • How is moral knowledge physically realized in the brain? • How did moral knowledge evolve in the species? Mikhail, J. (2007) Universal Moral Grammar: theory, evidence, and the future.

4. Universal Moral Code among children/different cultures • Studies have shown that young children have complex intuitive moral codes that are highly similar to sophisticated legal codes. • They are able to determine a moral act from an immoral one on the basis of intent or purpose. • Every language contains words or phrases expressing moral concepts such as permissible, forbidden, and obligatory. • Video Mikhail, J. (2007) Universal Moral Grammar: theory, evidence, and the future.

5. Two Main Arguments for the UMG approach • The human mind contains a moral grammar that is a complex set of rules, concepts, and principles that generates and relates mental representations of various types • The way in whichwe acquire moral grammar gives evidence for at least some of its core attributes to be innate. Mikhail, J. (2007) Universal Moral Grammar: theory, evidence, and the future.

6. Trolley Problems • These are used to examine the way humans decide on the morality of a situation. • Harm one, or save a larger number of individuals. • These decisions are often made “rapid, intuitive, and with a degree of certitude” (Mikhail, 2007, pg 144). • Deontic rules, structural descriptions, conversion rules all apply to this model and are applied to these various scenarios. Mikhail, J. (2007) Universal Moral Grammar: theory, evidence, and the future.

7. Interesting points There are words used for morality in every language such as permissible and forbidden. Trolley problems are unconsciously answered using complex cognitive steps. Mikhail was able to identify these steps as well. Mikhail suggests that we study how our moral competence functions rather than where it is located in our brain. Unclear points Chomsky’s theory of linguistics is much more testable than Mikhail’s UMG theory. Words vs. ideas. Some Trolley problems can be vague, perhaps not the best prediction of morality judgment. Findings on patient studies for a moral network of brain regions regarding moral cognition has been found controversial. Critical Review Mikhail, J. (2007) Universal Moral Grammar: theory, evidence, and the future.

8. Conclusion • Mikhail aims to show that Universal Moral Grammar can be examined through precise formal analysis in order to reveal the nature of moral cognition. • Evidence from the trolley problems have shown that humans are capable of making intuitive moral decisions between very similar scenarios. Mikhail, J. (2007) Universal Moral Grammar: theory, evidence, and the future.